940 words
Half Sigma, a Jewish human biodiversity blogger, recently threw in the towel. This is one of many recent examples of how the HBD movement is losing momentum, compelling John Derbyshire to ask aloud, “Is HBD Over?”
Let’s hope it is.
Sure, scientific inquiry should carry on. Our cause should work to benefit from whatever truths bolster it. But the notion that drubbing away about statistical data is enough to save our people needs to be laid to rest. For it truly is tangential.
- If Black intelligence were proven tomorrow to be identical to White intelligence, would we not still have a right to exist?
- If Mexican immigrant crime rates were proven tomorrow to be lower than our own, would we not still have a right to exist?
- If Whites and Asians were proven tomorrow to be separated by 5,000 instead of 50,000 years, would we not still have a right to exist?
I, for one, think we would have a right to exist if all of HBD were proven bunk. My problem with the HBD subculture and community is the implied premise that we need to explain and defend our right to exist. What other group is expected to do that? What other group should be reduced to doing that? Even worse, the community subtly implies that our premises are vulgar and supremacist in nature. It implies that we should kick out the Mexicans because they’re filthy and stupid, that we should run Blacks out of our neighborhoods for being vicious sub-humans, and that we should perhaps marry ourselves intelligent and submissive Asian wives and grapple our way into the exalted ranks of the cognitive elite.
Repeatedly, in public and private correspondences, I’ve been cajoled to lay off the toxic Jewish Question and stick with the HBD-style “racial realism” and the Sailerite “civic nationalism.” The impression projected is that “antisemitism” is paranoid, low brow, and anti-intellectual. I agree that there is a lot of mean-spirited, vulgar, and paranoid stuff coming out of the racialist and nationalist Right. The thing is, I think a disproportionate amount of it comes from our Jews. I find it tasteless how Larry Auster carries on at length about how ugly Black women supposedly are, as if there’s any reason to belabor that point. His left index finger is pointing out the giant muzzle on Michelle Obama while the right finger is wagging at those who dare challenge organized Jewry.
Nicholas Stix, whose contributions to American Renaissance and his original reporting on the Knoxville Horror are indubitably contributions, responded to my recent article about Michael Bloomberg blustering (incorrectly) that, “Bloomberg is not a financier, he’s a media mogul,” adding pithily, “But don’t let the facts bother you. Way to go, guys!”
Why would a man as intelligent as he, one with a journalistic background no less, lose his temper in defense of an overtly and explicitly anti-White financier? It’s simple, and I don’t hold it against him: it’s tribal. Stix is reliably (and to his credit) pro-White when it’s between Whites and Blacks, and he’s reliably (and understandably) anti-White when it’s between Whites and Jews. On the topic of whether Jews are White, these people who are otherwise bright, even brilliant, suddenly run into trouble grasping basic concepts.
Half Sigma’s article, “Jews are White” is a concise tour of easily unmasked falsehood and misdirection. First of all, he grossly oversimplifies the nature of Jewish identity by asserting that Judaism is merely a religion. Israel’s Right of Return and every other credible Jewish and objective source confirms that Jewishness is a complex phenomenon with a strong ethnic component, but he can’t even wrap his mind around the difference between race and ethnicity, so why bother explaining anything complex?
Half Sigma links to a graph on Steve Sailer’s blog confirming that they genetically cluster closely with Whites relative to other Middle Eastern groups, failing to draw his audience’s attention to the graph’s confirming that Jews are, after all, genetically distinct:
So, Ashkenazis look pretty European on this chart compared to a few Middle Eastern groups. But, as the recent graph showed, genetics has progressed to the point where Ashkenazis (at least those with four Ashkenazi grandparents) can now be reliably distinguished from other Europeans.
There are some White Nationalists who overstate this case, asserting that the Jews are more racially separate than they’ve been shown to be. The fact remains that Jews are a genetically distinct ethnic group which is hostile to and averse to integrating with its White American host population. The fact remains that White Nationalism in America is integrally an ethnic nationalist movement, rather than some farcical movement favoring a pan-racial White superstate of some sort. Even if Jews were “White,” they still wouldn’t belong in our movement. A vanishingly small subset of Jews may find common cause with us in kvetching about the schvartzes, but that’s necessarily where the common cause ends.
As America continues to decline both socially and economically, we can be assured that more Jews will join Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin in kvetching about the schvartzes. They’ll continue trying to stir up vulgar supremacism and strife between America’s various racial groups while carrying water for and covering the asses of the Jewish anti-White globalist financiers like Michael Bloomberg and his cronies. We White Americans should continue learning more about racial differences and we should continue reporting anti-White violence, but neither of those are substitutes for the vital work of reviving the spirit of our extended family of ethnic kinsmen and rallying them in defense of the rich inheritance our generation has been entrusted to preserve, perfect, and perpetuate.
31 comments
Thank you for this article, and I agree with it.
Somebody at this site wrote a wonderful article with how to deal with the (tiny) number of Jews who claim sympathy with whites. The basic point was that, because Jews historically use deception to weaken their opponents (as crypto-Jews causing Vatican II, the Communist Revolution, etc., etc.) we cannot trust them. This does not mean ill will to those few Jews who sincerely mean to help us, but because they wish us well, they must understand why we cannot trust them. They know how their tribe uses deception and subversion as its primary weapon, and therefore trusting them is simply illogical.
(And I know nothing of the individual who wrote an article mocking black women’s looks. But any man who arbitrarily denigrates a woman’s looks – unless her immoral behavior permits such insults – is either a filthy soul or, in this case, is all but certainly trying to sabotage white nationalists with that sort of vile writing. Fodder for the SPLC to team up with ‘The Atlantic’ and the DHS for an expose` on the “Hatred white nationalists have for black WOMEN!” An obvious set-up.)
Here is the quote regarding the proper response to Jewish support in the white nationalist (and related) movements. It’s from Greg Johnson’s October 1, 2012 article on ‘The Innocence of Muslims’:
“Thus it simply does not matter if a Jewish counter-jihadist or would-be White Nationalist protests that he is genuinely concerned to promote white interests, because that’s what any infiltrator would say. And we need not fear hurting the feelings of any sincere Jewish well-wishers. They will understand our mistrust and refusal to work with them, since they know their people better than any of us could.”
https://counter-currents.com/2012/10/innocence-of-muslims-guilt-of-jews-interests-of-whites/
I find it tasteless how Larry Auster carries on at length about how ugly Black women supposedly are, as if there’s any reason to belabor that point. His left index finger is pointing out the giant muzzle on Michelle Obama while the right finger is wagging at those who dare challenge organized Jewry.
Fascinating observation.
Jews will join Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin in kvetching about the schvartzes
Indeed. And I sympathize with the idea that “some of my favorite white people are short, fat and stupid.”
We have to defend Whites as Whites, not Whites as superior beings.
However, one gives up a rather powerful argument — namely, “look what happens to countries that overthrow white rule such as Rhodesia/Zim and South Africa, they go to hell.” Of course, the South Africans and Rhodesians made the mistake of using black labor.
The old saw, “you like civilization, you like being able to order pizza or 911 if you have to, you like clean water running out of the tap, well, no white people, no clean water.”
And that’s actually quite true. The Asians are very smart, but they have a lot of problems with pollution and corruption. If you have corruption, you don’t have democracy, adn the libs love democracy. Well, under non-white rule, FORGET even what semblance of democracy we have now; it will be feudalism with acid rain and drones.
I like to use this point to cause doubt in the minds of those who oppose us. It is a good weapon of the Persuasion MindWar.
One last thing that I think you omitted, because admittedly it’s a difficult thing to articulate, but we are in a battle of Minds, and we have been losing precisely because public school and mass media has created Idiocracy.
Idiocracy is the root cause of why ZOG is able to pile up daily victories. There is not a critical mass of functioning brains to organize and oppose them.
ZOG changed the human environment, in order to make humans a more friendly substrate for their particular brand of pathogenic virulence. They changed us, to be better slaves for them, though they could have never done it without the help of abundant fossil fuels.
They created, with fossil fuels, the push button society. Like a mouse that can pull a lever and get cheese.
It has become too easy to survive — that’s an even more root cause, because if we were foraging our survival, we wouldn’t have time for public school or TV shows.
It is going to suddenly become more difficult for the average person to survive. The oligarchs should be OK, they’ll have private hospitals and food storage and refineries; they will be vulnerable to logistics, however, and to disloyal Pretorian guards.
But the proles, us out here, are going to be thrown to the cold winter night, like a poodle abandoned down a logging road in Wisconsin on a cold January night. When I tell that story, I always end it with this — a snow plow driver comes along and almost runs over the poodle; he stops and gets out and adopts it, and it survives. Like I hope we survive.
So suddenly, we are going to need our brains again, big time. We are going to have to exercise our Resourcefulness and Creativity.
If you want to prepare now, learn appropriate technology and practical science, usually by getting a job in the field — resource extraction, fermenting (brewing and lacto-fermenting) agriculture, metalworking, chemistry, physics, microbiology. Study math for fun if you do nothing else, both calc and statistics, so you can teach these things to the next generation.
We won’t be crippled by the anti-intellectualism of our forefathers. Even in the old days, there was a skepticism of the possibility of advancement through creative thinking. Now we take creative thinking for granted as a unvarnished Good. We must keep this way of thinking, and not go back to the old ways of superstition and anti-intellectualism.
Resourcefulness and Creativity will make us strong again, and aware of who our enemies are, and we will have the ability to defeat them.
Thank you for this Matt. Ole Bob Whitaker is opposed to both HBD arguments and “news and jews” as he calls the JQ, but I find myself unable to avoid them when posting the mantra. The mantra raises questions that cannot be answered without talking about the Jewish Question. The mantra both raises the JQ and opens people up to the truth about Jewish influence at the same time.
I never feel like I have the moral highground when using HBD. While you say that we have a right to exist regardless of HBD, and I agree, so many do not see it that way. They think white self-preservation is wrong because nothing unique will be lost if we are destroyed. They say, “we all bleed red” or “there’s only one race, the human race.”
The problem is that the Jews have ruled out HBD truths a priori by claiming that race is a “social construct.” “Anti-racists” are more or less conceding that blacks are less intelligent than whites nowadays. Not too long ago there was a special on Norwegian TV where some antifa said yes if you divide people up into groups you would probably find intelligence differences but the groups are arbitrary and don’t exist in reality and moreover it is immoral to inquire into racial differences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19l3L-ldLas (at 36:00)
This nominalist critique of race is why HBD is not getting anywhere. As Alex K. said recently, people evaluate facts based on their moral prejudices, and it is very clear that large swaths of the white population would prefer to sit by and watch all of Western Civilization go the way of Johannesburg rather than admit that egalitarianism is not only wrong but horribly destructive. I do believe they are the minority, though, and common sense will prevail in the end.
Here’s a couple of comments from Takimag that I believe are pertinent to this discussion:
Degueldre
If it’s any consolation, living in a country where politics is essentially a one-party joke isn’t that bad. South Africa’s ANC is exactly what the US Democratic Party would (and will) look like with an unassailable race-and welfare-based “natural majority”. In many ways its a relief not to have the slightest ability to influence things or give a damn what happens in government. You just get on with your life, make sure that you don’t have to depend on the State for a goddamn thing and smirk in amusement at the antics of the ever more incompetent idiots that the voting fodder keep putting in power.
Once you realize that government is not a servant but a parasitic enemy to be avoided, that your country is never going to look like some kind of fantasy first world Pleasantville, that civil society is something you read about in novels, that nearly everyone you see outside of your secure enclave hates you and would kill you for a few dollars or just for spite, that your kids need to be in the top 2% of everything they do just to have a shot at a decent life, that you alone are responsible for your own happiness and for making sure your family prospers, you are equipped to live in the post globalised world.
erik_ny
That was really good. I think smart urban kids get it — the part about being in the top 2% of everything — or else….
This culture promotes stupidity, it’s very cool to be stupid. Being cool, if taken seriously, is going to land you in one of the less-than-desirable zip codes with less-than-desirable neighbors, possibly for life.
Middle class security evaporated with off-shoring of manufacturing and big corporations with their new ‘flexible’ structures. It’s hard to believe a nice job in a big corporation once meant you were set for life, isn’t it? That doesn’t exist anywhere anymore. You have to be in the top 2% and ready at any moment to jump on a better offer, it’s the only way to get ahead. You begin your career with the assumption you are going to quit or be fired at some point, and you have to be ready for that moment at all times. What a way to live.
Corporate flexibility + offshoring + single motherhood = the rich will get richer. Their lives aren’t negatively impacted by any of this. Tough young rich white guys in their 20s attend nine weddings a year, they go hunting, they go golfing, they go to aspen, they buy up distressed real estate, they’ll have 3 kids, they’ll be fine. I’m just not sure what happens to everyone else.
I love your descriptions of life in South Africa. Well-to-do Americans live in a kind of bubble, similar to the way you describe white South Africans…. I just think they have a less-clear idea of what’s outside the bubble, apart from vague assumptions it’s unsafe and possibly unsanitary in places. I would think South Africans have a much more vivid picture.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/is_obama_shaping_a_new_majority_patrick_buchanan/print#ixzz2I3fSHhqB
Yes I’ve noticed a recent push across the internet for Whites to stop talking about the Tribe and focus on the blacks. Now if all Jews were just obnoxious blow-hards like Howard Stern or Larry David, or even greedy bankers, there wouldn’t be a major problem but something sinister is always at hand. Characters like Mr. Stix and the AR jews are just like the marranos with their subversive conversions. Now at this point, one has to ask ‘Why?’ What is there even left to gain? To even go to the that level of shamelessness by infiltrating these organizations just shows that there is an ideological virus gone wild, beyond genetics/DNA.
Perhaps they’re a little scared that Blacks will finally turn on them and so they are seeking refuge. I just saw Django (with its heroic German lead) and it can’t be too long before they realize who’s running Candyland today.
Matt Parrott: “If Black intelligence were proven tomorrow to be identical to White intelligence, would we not still have a right to exist?”
There are no “rights” to exist.
Existence is achieved only by those strong enough to insure it, and does not depend on the mercy of anyone, be they individuals, institutions, or governments.
And yes, it does indeed make a huge difference whether or not whites have superior intelligence. If it turned out that blacks were just as intelligent as whites, and that interbreeding with them would not lessen the world’s collective IQ, then civilization and all that makes it up – science, technology, medicine, art, literature, and more – are not (and never were) under threat, then it matters little if whites as a distinctive race became extinct. All that would be lost would be our physical beauty, as we gradually became blended into the Tan Everyman. That’s sad, to be true, but Man would still reach the Stars.
On the other hand, losing the ability to reach the Stars is the one and only tragedy that we whites must fear. So yes, Mr. Parrott, it does indeed matter if whites have superior intellects – or not. If we don’t no further struggle is needed on our part. In fact, it would be evident that there never was.
But of course we know whites are intellectually superior and if they should vanish from the earth then the world that’s coming will be the same one portrayed by Ward Kendall in his epic novel. Afterall, we’re fighting for the intellect of mankind, and not just to keep blue eyes and blonde hair from vanishing from this earth.
I agree with Luke– we are not working so that some Podunk Indian tribe can preserve its “identity”, but to save the Faustian splendor of Western civilization, which we recognize to be superior to others and a unique light to mankind, an infinitely more transcendent cause than a parochial fight for tribal or racial determination. We seek to show scientifically what to us is apparent intuitively, that white Europeans are the necessary and sufficient condition for the resultant character of that civilization.
On a more mundane level, HBD is or should be an important arrow in the quiver against wrong headed social engineering like affirmative action.
HBD is in itself an admission of failure.
If you need graphs and charts to convince your audience that they have to love their people and culture, there’s a problem somewhere!
In a way, HBD-maniacs remind me of the communists after 1989-91: “If HBD has failed, it’s because there hasn’t been enough of it!”.
But of course, you could stockpile one billion bell curves showing that whites are different from other races, it is subsidiary: nobody will ever be convinced by that.
And, as I’m often trying to get people aware of it, HBDites are inconsistent by their own standards: they pretend to be elitists, but they think only in average terms, with average figures.
Which leads them to major errors, like the myth that Asians have a higher IQ than whites. It’s wrong: their mean IQ is higher, but they have a very small proportion of their population whose IQ is above 120, whereas there is a reasonable number of whites who score higher than 120.
Culture being led by the uncommon man, and not by the common man, this explains why Asians are much less creative than Europeans (I think Matt Parrott talked about that in his article “Why I write”). But, as creativity is not something the HBDites care much about, they don’t notice it. And they keep spreading their false idea of an Asian “superiority”, which is completely disastrous in terms of making your people proud of what they are.
“As America continues to decline both socially and economically, we can be assured that more Jews will join Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin in kvetching about the schvartzes. They’ll continue trying to stir up vulgar supremacism and strife between America’s various racial groups while carrying water for and covering the asses of the Jewish anti-White globalist financiers like Michael Bloomberg and his cronies.”
Yes, a classic case of the old game of “let’s you and him fight.”
My problem with the HBD subculture and community is the implied premise that we need to explain and defend our right to exist. What other group is expected to do that? What other group should be reduced to doing that?
All other groups, actually. There’s a common misconception in WN circles that a massive double standard is being applied to whites regarding ‘the right to exist.’ It’s understandable how this came about, considering that only white countries are subjected to mass, endless immigration (though even this statement is somewhat misleading, as non-white countries certainly have been exposed to large numbers of unwanted and unlike immigrants recently). But this leads to the misconception that every other group is keenly aware of its racial interests and does everything possible to secure and safeguard them. The fact is there is just as much as ignorance among other groups as to the requirements for ongoing racial existence – namely, in McCulloch’s term, ‘reproductive isolation’ – as there is among whites. In no country on earth is there is serious effort being made to secure reproductive isolation, nor is there much awareness of the need for or of the benefits of securing it.
Now, if you wanted to claim that relatively far fewer people would freak out if a China or a Japan or a Saudi Arabia decided that, hang on, we value our racial existence and that existence is at present insecure and we need to secure it than when whites make that point I would agree wholeheartedly.
On the point about the ‘right’ to exist (or to anything), such rights may not ‘exist in nature,’ but humans are willing to recognize rights to certain things or to grant rights to certain things to others so in this sense they do ‘exist’ and it does make sense to talk as though they exist.
The Han push into Tibet is one such example of overt defense of biological identity. The Zimbabwean and South African programs are explicitly and openly committed to defending their biological identity. The immigration policies of innumerable non-White countries are designed to sharply limit the inflow of alien identity groups.
As Whiteness and wealth are indeed correlated, the question is more direct here than in, say, Mexico. But even Mexicans seek to limit the immigration of other identity groups. In cases where the other populations are threatened in one way or another by biological replacement, they respond without first rigorously outlining a moral case for why they should not be displaced and replaced.
There’s no misconception here. Whites are held to one standard regarding identity, and every other group is held to a different standard.
There’s no misconception here. Whites are held to one standard regarding identity, and every other group is held to a different standard.
Yes, regarding identity. But not regarding the actual requirements of securing that racial identity. Most groups are actually clueless about what that requires.
Look, I’ve spent countless hours over the last year or so talking race with hispanics and even though they (or at least the ones I talk to) are typically very strongly and openly ethnoracially identified, they react with the same disbelief and the same horror that whites do when I point out the precariousness of their racial security and the political requirements of achieving actual (not imagined) racial security. Their comparatively much stronger ethnoracial identities (relative to whites) do not seem to be much help at all in urging them towards a political position that would actually result in racial security.
Of course, many a WN would claim they have nothing worth preserving anyway, that their racial kind(s) is already ruined. From a purity point of view that’s true, but defending purity for purity’s sake seems misplaced to me; racial identity is still valuable despite pervasive impurity. Worse, the purity argument backfires not only because it makes it easy(-ier) to portray WNs as supremacists, but because it turns the WN misconception that whites are the only group denied racial security from a mere a misconception into a wholly unreasonable insistence that whites are only group entitled to racial security.
Verlis,
You moved the goal posts from a simple question of whether or not non-Whites are welcome to cherish and preserve their identity over to some unfamiliar “racial security” consideration beyond the simple and blatant double standard which was being discussed. Whether or not other groups have pondered or would resort to more strident measures than they already take is a distraction.
I agree with the voice inside your head which finds constructing our arguments around purity and supremacy counter-productive. In my opinion, that voice inside your head handily defeated the other one. It’s especially odd of you to trot that out under this article, given that I directly confronted that sort of mentality in the article in question.
Bloomberg made the vast bulk of his fortune as a media mogul so it’s misleading to keep referring to him as a financier.
Am I really so far off base here in describing a man who made tens of millions as a financier at Salomon Brothers as a financier? He built his fortune in straightforward finance then leveraged that fortune into the stratosphere with finance-related communication services.
His so-called “media empire” is a “financial data”…media empire. Bloomberg L.P. doesn’t make cartoons, sitcoms, or movies. It packages and distributes financial information. It is technically media, because it’s on television screens and such, but the business model is built exclusively upon financial data, for Christ’s sake.
He built his fortune in straightforward finance then leveraged that fortune into the stratosphere with finance-related communication services
Well, what defines “his fortune”: the first few million in finance or the subsequent gazillion in financial data services?
How about a compromise? He is a financial media mogul.
Compromise? Pfft.
The only fair resolution of this is for you to apologize for accusing me of deception when I quite clearly engaged in no such thing. But I’m a generous man, so I’ll settle on the compromise of simply dropping the matter.
I should add that the misconception I refer to above arises not only from immigration, but also from the fact that other groups are permitted and encouraged to be concerned about and to enjoy and celebrate their racial identities while strenuous and official efforts are made to prohibit whites from doing so. That certainly is a screaming double standard.
One set of facts doesn’t have to push out another. Yes we should love ourselves at a basic existential level, but part of the White Man’s nature is to exceed. We want a reason to love ourselves as well. So in our outreach, focus first on the basics of self love, then on the benefits that come with White Civilization – and for any potential Overmen (if Feminists object, we can call them Overpeople!) we can speak about the unique glory of the White Race in terms of creativity and curiousity – with IQ as a part of that.
Matt, will you attend the AR conference this year? I will be there and I hope you will be, too.
Is the speaking program out? Didn’t see it on the Amren site. Taylor inviting any Jews this year to insult WNists? He did last year.
@Lew: the speakers for the upcoming AR conference can be found here: http://www.amren.com/2013-ar-conference/ .
Taylor invited Roth again. Lord. At least he is consistent. I will say no more.
While the HBD bloggers worry about the IQ of non-Whites, most people tend to worry about crime. It is certainly more politically correct to complain about crime than about race replacement. But I’d like to know what most people tell their friends in private conversation :
Do they complain that the streets are becoming more and more dangerous, or do they complain that White people are being replaced?
Are they afraid of being politically incorrect if they complain about race replacement, or are they afraid of sounding nerdy and overly philosophical if they mention that they want the White race to survive for a few more thousand years?
Steve Sailer is a giant. But, excluding Steve Sailer, I was never impressed by the political instincts of the HBD collective. I quit taking about IQ years ago in my discourse. The only time I bring it up is: 1) to show how Jews and White liberals are dishonest, and 2) to attack the idea that the “legacy” of “white racism” explains the pathologies in urban black communities. In both cases, the target isn’t so much blacks as it is our real enemies, Jews and other whites, the parties responsible for forcing us to live among blacks.
The IQ obsessiveness at Amren is mostly a waste. The charts, the graphs, etc. just prove what everyone already knows. Everyone knows which neighborhoods to avoid and why. Also, I have never believed standardized tests are necessary to prove blacks are a genetically inferior sub-species. Judge them by their accomplishments in their native lands. Blacks were unable to move much beyond the Stone Age without help from the outside.
The portion of AmRen/Taylor’s work that I use is his positive and moral case for WNism not so much the parts dealing with the black menace.
“We wish other races well, but we cannot welcome them into our ranks because they are not us. Only we can be us, and we have a right to be us.”
My favorite Taylorism, from memory. It doesn’t mention the black menace. The emphasis, again, is positive and moral.
Men (and women) do not want to consider questions of Race because they are too terrible; questions of eternity.
Rather; soothing to think that we are all one, bleeding and dying. The tension between life and death, perhaps, but enough of that!
The questions are simpler when they are not asked; instead resolved heuristically, or ontologically.
The preceding is meant for an explanation for the disinterest in the questions. Arguing with a horse is fun or not, but the language becomes problematic. Specifically the language of genocide. Now i am being the tired horse, but here is a great case for respecting the descriptive nature of language. People hear genocide, they say, Where are the bodies. Point to some legal definitions, and the argument is on a different level, and the wrong level, and lost.
To understand open borders and loss of land as genocide requires thinking, in the long term or abstract. The argument for white interests is not made in that defensive mode.
“People hear genocide, they say, Where are the bodies.”
They should be told that race-replacement is genocide.
But the sentence is lighter if you refrain from killing people.
It says here that the punishment for genocide is :
– If death results: death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both.
– If no one is killed: a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.
They should be told that race-replacement is genocide.
But the sentence is lighter if you refrain from killing people.
Agreed.
The herd does not mind being replaced, but does not want to be slaughtered.
White interests do or do not require that the white people in question, White Americans say, be better, than the others.
I would say that the interests, meaning the existence, of the White American ethnic group, does require that they be better than their competitors; in accordance with ecology.
It does not work for public relations, though, does it. Such immolating modesty, has the white man.
You can’t talk about HBD without acknowledging it’s opposing school of thought: social constructionism (i.e. “race is a social construct”).
When you abandon the very good science at the heart of HBD, you are conceding the field of science to the social constructionists. This would be a mistake.
Here’s why: at the heart of social constructionism (when it comes to race) is the argument that if race is a fiction, then white people don’t have a right to exist. They don’t have a right to exist because, after all, whites don’t exist. We’re all just humans. A white person who says otherwise is a racist. Don’t let them have a good paying job.
Your reply that other groups don’t get treated the same way for asserting their identity and their interests is true, of course – and that’s the rub. When you say that, you’re thinking within the conceptual terms of multiculturalism, a body of thought which at its heart is inherently anti-white, which is inherently hypocritical, which was never designed to be balanced and just, which was developed always as a set of arguments for dispossessing whites and giving away our societies to non-whites.
It’s perfectly fine to point out the hypocrisies. We have to do it. But we can’t expect to reform multiculturalism to be sympathetic to the possibility of white racial awareness – our #1 goal. Multiculturalism has been and always will be diametrically opposed and hostile to this goal.
So while we have to engage with multicultural arguments at various levels our own movement needs a different footing, a different foundation. Science is an excellent place to start.
When we base our arguments on HBD science we get two things: we become able to say our arguments are based on Truth, not just the fashionable academic lingo-stew du jour, and, we can begin to build and present an alternative discourse which can compete with multiculturalism, a discourse which was designed to shut us out of the debate altogether.
While the social constructionists continue to say we don’t exist beyond being a “social construct,” with the help of HBD science, we can point at them and say to our people “they’re wrong, the scientific Truth is we exist, and we’ve existed for millenia – now organize!”
Isn’t this a more solid and satisfying footing for our most essential argument, as opposed to merely complaining that the other side are being hypocrites employing a double-standard? And of course, nothing prevents us from pointing out the scientific Truth AND the other side’s hypocrisies.
We’re never going to be able to build white racial consciousness as long as the social constructionists appear to represent scientific consensus. They only appear to represent it now, and conceding the field to them is to let them win a fight they haven’t won in any real sense other than through demagoguery.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.